It could also be argued that parties do not matter anymore because the proliferation of the mass media, particularly the growth of 24-hr news channels such as CNN, and the rapid growth of the internet . These developments have ;supplanted the political party as the main conduit between candidate and voter.’ Candidates no longer have to talk through their parties to the grass-root members or ordinary voters; they can participate in a online debate, or give an interview to a news channel.
There are also grounds for arguing that parties do not matter anymore because traditional party loyalties have broken down. As Martin Wattenberg commented: ‘for over four decades the American public has been drifting away from the two major political parties.’ The statistics seem to support this; in 1952 for example, 47% of the electorate regarded themselves as either ‘strong’ or ‘weak’ Democrats. By 2000, the figure had fallen to 34%. The breakdown of these traditional party loyalties has meant that voters are less interested in the party that they vote for, and more interested in the candidate and the policies. This process of partisan dealignment is supported by the phenomenon of split ticket voting – voting for candidates of two or more parties for different offices in the same election – which has grown rapidly since 1952 where 13% of the electorate voted for different parties for different office, to 28% in 1994.
However, many would argue that the extent to which parties do not matter anymore, particularly with regard to popular identification, has been exaggerated; parties could echo the words of Mart Twain: the report of my death was an exaggeration.’
Despite dealignment, almost two-thirds of Americans still identify with one of the principal parties. Furthermore, although the proportion of ‘independents’ has grown, many of these ‘independents’ lean towards either the Democrats or the Republicans. This is reflected by the extent to which politics is still dominated by the two main parties. In 2000, only two seats in Congress and two state governorships were not controlled by the two main parties. Moreover, many would argue that voting loyalties in Congress – although weak in comparison with the UK – are stronger than ever If parties were declining in importance, a decline in partisanship could be anticipated. in 1995, recorded votes in the Senate and in the House showed the highest levels of partisanship since 1922 and 1920 respectively. The trial of President Clinton and Bush v. Gore (2000) have only served to further heighten this partisanship.
One could perhaps credit this mini party revival with the modernisation of the party organisations over the last twenty years. In the Republican party, the Brock reforms (1977 – 1981) have strengthened the position of the Republican National Committee, which is the central party organisation. It gained a permanent head-quarters a block away from Capitol Hill, and by 1984 the number of staff it employed reached six hundred, a threefold increase from 1976. It was also able to offer candidates training, and help to organise fundraising activities. The work of Democratic National Committee did much the same for the Democratic party.
Furthermore, although some of the work that parties had traditionally performed in the elections have been assumed by pressure groups, to say that parties don’t matter anymore in elections would be a vast oversimplification. Parties do still play a role in election campaigns, and many would argue that parties have, to an extent, regained some control over the election process. Certainly, the introduction of the ‘super delegates,’ – elected office holders who are given ex officio seats at the Democratic National Convention as uncommitted delegated - who account for 20% of delegate has increased party control over the selection of the presidential candidate because the decision is no longer just made by the rank-and-file Democrat supporters. Similarly, the triumph of George W. Bush (choice of the party ‘establishment’) over John McCain (choice of the rank and file Republicans) illustrates that parties still play a role in the selection of presidential candidates.
Moreover, just because parties do not completely control the primary and caucus process does not mean they do not matter anymore. Parties have an active roll in the primaries, as Paul S. Hennson comments: ‘Party leaders and staff use polls, the promise of party campaign money and services, and the persuasive talents of party leaders, members of Congress and even presidents to influence the decisions of potential candidates’.
Although candidates do rely on pressure group spending on their behalf, and on their own resources, it could be incorrect to say that partied do not matter at all with regard to funding. Both major parties have utilised the fact that funds for ‘party-building’ and get-out-the-vote activities have remained largely unregulated. Parties have therefore been able to use this soft money – money that is not regulated – to significantly enhance their role in national campaigns. The hundreds of thousands of signs of support for John Kerry or George W. Bush in American citizens’ gardens up and down the country were testimony to this. Furthermore, the national committees and other party committees e.g. the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have played an increasingly assertive role in fund-raising activities. They co-ordinate and distribute funds to party candidates, particularly in close contests and in open seats in which there is no incumbent.
Lastly, the growing nationalisation of election campaigns has increased the role of parties, and thus the extent to which they matter, in elections. In the 1994 mid-terms for example, Republicans House candidates campaigned around a ten-point policy programme called the Contract with America. This stipulated that in the event of successful election, Republican House members would introduce a series of measures e.g. congressional term limits, within the first hundred days of Congress.
However, despite this partial reassertion of the role of the parties in the past twenty years, what is certainly clear is that the American political system and culture makes life inherently difficult for parties. The sheer size of the country, with such vast political and cultural traditions across America makes it very difficult to establish a coherent political party. The Democratic party in New England for example, would be very different from its counterpart in the Deep South. This means that what we really see in America is fifty Democratic and fifty Republican parties, and not two strong national party organisations. Similarly the dispersal of power in the US federal system makes it very difficult for parties to establish a consistent party platform. How can a central party organisation for example, ensure elected state officials in Kentucky vote the same as their counterparts in Massachusetts.
The diminished role of the parties in election, the theories of regionalism, federalism and of the separation of powers means that party discipline in very weak in Congress. Candidates are not reliant on their parties for re-election, this is in the ‘gift of the folks back home,’ – with pressure group help – and the party leadership in Congress is unable to offer any significant promotion because the executive and legislative branches are not fused, and so, legislators are under less pressure to toe the party line, and thus more receptive to outside influence.
Although the general trend has seen the traditional roles of the parties farmed out to other organisations, to say that parties do not mater anymore would a vast oversimplification. Parties do still matter in American politics, and many would argue that the extent to which they matter has somewhat increased over the past twenty years.
What is perhaps a more accurate conclusion is that parties, because of regionalism, federalism and the separation of powers, always have, and probably always will be somewhat insignificant, particularly in comparison with their UK counterparts.
